This has already happened. The "DirectX SDK" stopped existing long ago.

>It seems MS is making people use C++ again as this is their major language for win 8 development on all win 8 varieties.

Why so? You can't use plain old C++ at all with WinRT/Metro/Windows-Store -- you can use C++/CX or C# though, which appear to be on equal footing.
You can also use D3D via C# -- XNA was never a "C# version of D3D", it's a comprehensive game framework/engine.

You're comparing XNA, which is a complete game framework programmable via C#, with C++ and DirectXMath, which is a language and a math library? I don't understand the comparison...

As you are most likely aware, XNA is a .Net wrapper around the C++ based directX bindings. .. so my thinking is that if XNA is not updated when they remove the old math library (and MSFT just said they would not), that effectively kills it, or worse, math just got a lot harder to figure out for game development for the noobs. Am I communicating clearly? If not, I apologize..

As you are most likely aware, XNA is a .Net wrapper around the C++ based directX bindings. .. so my thinking is that if XNA is not updated when they remove the old math library (and MSFT just said they would not), that effectively kills it, or worse, math just got a lot harder to figure out for game development for the noobs. Am I communicating clearly? If not, I apologize.

You're missing a point on the previous page - XNA has not just suddenly ceased to exist. You can still use it. It's still a supported platform. It just won't be updated in future, but that's no reason to suddenly declare it off-limits for anything. It's still there, it still works, you can still use it

It appears that the gentleman thought C++ was extremely difficult and he was overjoyed that the machine was absorbing it; he understood that good C++ is difficult but the best C++ is well-nigh unintelligible.

As you are most likely aware, XNA is a .Net wrapper around the C++ based directX bindings

Ah ok. Well, it's actually a lot more than that.
SlimDX or SharpDX are .Net wrappers around DX.
XNA is more like a .Net game engine (a game-oriented runtime framework and a tool-chain) that happens to use DX. It provides systems other than just wrappers, and it provides different abstractions than DX, which makes it something more than just a wrapper.

As you are most likely aware, XNA is a .Net wrapper around the C++ based directX bindings. .. so my thinking is that if XNA is not updated when they remove the old math library (and MSFT just said they would not), that effectively kills it, or worse, math just got a lot harder to figure out for game development for the noobs. Am I communicating clearly? If not, I apologize.

You're missing a point on the previous page - XNA has not just suddenly ceased to exist. You can still use it. It's still a supported platform. It just won't be updated in future, but that's no reason to suddenly declare it off-limits for anything. It's still there, it still works, you can still use it

This is correct. The only thing that is not certain is for how long the XBL Indie Games service will continue to be supported. Currently, XNA is the only way possible to get indie games distributed on Xbox, and there's no word yet if a similar service is coming to the console's successor.

This is correct. The only thing that is not certain is for how long the XBL Indie Games service will continue to be supported. Currently, XNA is the only way possible to get indie games distributed on Xbox, and there's no word yet if a similar service is coming to the console's successor.

Given how they are treating Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 with regards to getting indie developers on the platform to produce apps I wouldn't be surprised if the next Xbox has something in much the same going forwards - however given, last I checked, the next Xbox hasn't been officially announced yet the lack of word with regards to any supported APIs and functionality is hardly surprising.

MS aren't known for giving details pre-official announcements to the point where they will go silent on issues they plan to address in up coming conferences (see: various Win8 related things from last year).

As I said on the other page; the kernel is likely to be the same as WP8/Win8 so the ability to sandbox will be the same, however I suspect for the indie crowd you might end up with a requirement to go to VS2012 (certainly for VS in fact) and Win8 to do anything with it.

This is correct. The only thing that is not certain is for how long the XBL Indie Games service will continue to be supported. Currently, XNA is the only way possible to get indie games distributed on Xbox, and there's no word yet if a similar service is coming to the console's successor.

Given how they are treating Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 with regards to getting indie developers on the platform to produce apps I wouldn't be surprised if the next Xbox has something in much the same going forwards - however given, last I checked, the next Xbox hasn't been officially announced yet the lack of word with regards to any supported APIs and functionality is hardly surprising.

MS aren't known for giving details pre-official announcements to the point where they will go silent on issues they plan to address in up coming conferences (see: various Win8 related things from last year).

As I said on the other page; the kernel is likely to be the same as WP8/Win8 so the ability to sandbox will be the same, however I suspect for the indie crowd you might end up with a requirement to go to VS2012 (certainly for VS in fact) and Win8 to do anything with it.

One thing to keep in mind; People are currently paying to be developers on the XBOX using the XNA libs.... Either MS has to provide a way for them to get their monies worth, or they need to sort it out otherwise. And either way, its an income stream for MS so it would seem to be illogical for them to just kill it off with no way to still collect the $$$. I'm sure there is more to this.

A year or two ago, I would have taken every bet that in 2-3 years 99% of games are written in XNA.

Out of interest, what would've made you make that bet?

XNA has always been a niche bit of tech, mostly aimed at indies, hasn't it? I'm not aware of any of the big budget we-can-afford-to-license-the-full-unreal-engine type AAA games made with it.

Back in 2007, we had a Microsoft "evangelist" (that was actually his job title) come and brainwash upper-management into thinking that XNA and Silverlight were the best thing since sliced bread, but luckily middle-management decided to rock the boat and let us stick with Gamebryo and Flash.

I have been working with DirectX for a long while now (coming up on 15 years), and one thing is certain to happen with APIs over time - they change. They get updated, new versions are added, new platforms come around, etc... XNA is actually in a little different situation because it is more of a framework over an API, but I see it as being very similar to a direct API. The moral of the story - don't get too attached to a particular technology, because it will probably change sooner or later.

From what I can tell, XNA made things easy for people to get started. It was a great framework, and many, many people really like it. But the functionality that it provides can be built - there is no reason to panic if XNA will not be updated anymore. It is still there, and will be there for a long time to come (much longer than the next version of Windows, I'm sure...). If you need new features to be added to it, you were already going to be waiting for the next version anyways.

As you are most likely aware, XNA is a .Net wrapper around the C++ based directX bindings. .. so my thinking is that if XNA is not updated when they remove the old math library (and MSFT just said they would not), that effectively kills it, or worse, math just got a lot harder to figure out for game development for the noobs. Am I communicating clearly? If not, I apologize.

Math library? XNA has its own math library supplied as a managed library. It doesn't wrap any of the old D3DX math stuff, if that's what you're thinking.